If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I don't really understand why people are fixated on yards/super bowl wins...... or other numbers that don't actually explain how good people were in the era they played in. In my opinion the following are the best criteria in order to judge the greatness of a QB (1st team all pro appearances/MVP awards/TD- Interception ratio/super bowl victories/pro bowls).

How many times a QB was able to make 1st team all pro shows how many times they were the absolute best for a single season. To me this statistic trumps everything else. A close 2nd is touchdown to interception ratio, I understand this has evolved over time and isn't necessarily kind to Unitas or Starr but for anyone playing in the late 70's to present it is a wonderful statistic that encompasses efficiency and productivity. MVP awards speak for themself; being the best player in football for a season shows a certain level of greatness. Super Bowl appearances and wins can be mis-leading. Eli Manning is not a top 10 QB and has 2 SB victories, Roethlisberger has 2 and will likely never be a top 10 QB, Aikman has 3, yet never threw 20 TD passes in one season and has a 1-1 TD to interception ratio (stats alone he is not even a HOF'er)..... yet Marino has 0 and is basically top 5 on everyone's list. In my opinion Montana played with such superior talent that he is over-rated in most people's eyes. This in no way means he is not great, he is certainly in my top 5 but is not number 1. He was very clutch but a few post season drives don't make someone the best ever in my opinion. If he had won another with the Chiefs I may have a different attitude but that didn't happen. Elway was not one time a 1st team all pro... so how can someone realistically think he is the best of all time when he wasnt the best in one single season? Based on the criteria layed out it's fairly easy to come up with a list of the greatest *** Currently Aaron Rodgers is poised to become the best ever, he currently has the best td-interception ratio and QB rating of all time and is the most efficient qb to ever play the game. With a few more all pro teams and maybe another MVP; at the pace he is on statistically there really aren't any arguments against him at this time

Hidden Content1. Main player wants- P. Manning/R. Moss/L. Tomlinson/D. Brees/M. Faulk2. If you ask for prices and don't reply with an answer I will not be replying to your "price" questions anymore. If not interested a simple no will do.

I don't really understand why people are fixated on yards/super bowl wins...... or other numbers that don't actually explain how good people were in the era they played in. In my opinion the following are the best criteria in order to judge the greatness of a QB (1st team all pro appearances/MVP awards/TD- Interception ratio/super bowl victories/pro bowls).

How many times a QB was able to make 1st team all pro shows how many times they were the absolute best for a single season. To me this statistic trumps everything else. A close 2nd is touchdown to interception ratio, I understand this has evolved over time and isn't necessarily kind to Unitas or Starr but for anyone playing in the late 70's to present it is a wonderful statistic that encompasses efficiency and productivity. MVP awards speak for themself; being the best player in football for a season shows a certain level of greatness. Super Bowl appearances and wins can be mis-leading. Eli Manning is not a top 10 QB and has 2 SB victories, Roethlisberger has 2 and will likely never be a top 10 QB, Aikman has 3, yet never threw 20 TD passes in one season and has a 1-1 TD to interception ratio (stats alone he is not even a HOF'er)..... yet Marino has 0 and is basically top 5 on everyone's list. In my opinion Montana played with such superior talent that he is over-rated in most people's eyes. This in no way means he is not great, he is certainly in my top 5 but is not number 1. He was very clutch but a few post season drives don't make someone the best ever in my opinion. If he had won another with the Chiefs I may have a different attitude but that didn't happen. Elway was not one time a 1st team all pro... so how can someone realistically think he is the best of all time when he wasnt the best in one single season? Based on the criteria layed out it's fairly easy to come up with a list of the greatest *** Currently Aaron Rodgers is poised to become the best ever, he currently has the best td-interception ratio and QB rating of all time and is the most efficient qb to ever play the game. With a few more all pro teams and maybe another MVP; at the pace he is on statistically there really aren't any arguments against him at this time

people seem to value stats that make their favorites look good and discredit stats that hurt their favorites. Not singling you out, just saying that is pretty standard in all "best of all time" lists. All manning fans want to devalue playoff performance because that is where manning suffers.
I think MVP should count for very little because it is very subjective and often times is more about the story then actual most valuable. Most manning fans want to value MVP's because that is where he stands above the rest.

same with montana fans wanting to use super bowls, and marino fans want to use statistics.

I don't really understand why people are fixated on yards/super bowl wins...... or other numbers that don't actually explain how good people were in the era they played in. In my opinion the following are the best criteria in order to judge the greatness of a QB (1st team all pro appearances/MVP awards/TD- Interception ratio/super bowl victories/pro bowls).

How many times a QB was able to make 1st team all pro shows how many times they were the absolute best for a single season. To me this statistic trumps everything else. A close 2nd is touchdown to interception ratio, I understand this has evolved over time and isn't necessarily kind to Unitas or Starr but for anyone playing in the late 70's to present it is a wonderful statistic that encompasses efficiency and productivity. MVP awards speak for themself; being the best player in football for a season shows a certain level of greatness. Super Bowl appearances and wins can be mis-leading. Eli Manning is not a top 10 QB and has 2 SB victories, Roethlisberger has 2 and will likely never be a top 10 QB, Aikman has 3, yet never threw 20 TD passes in one season and has a 1-1 TD to interception ratio (stats alone he is not even a HOF'er)..... yet Marino has 0 and is basically top 5 on everyone's list. In my opinion Montana played with such superior talent that he is over-rated in most people's eyes. This in no way means he is not great, he is certainly in my top 5 but is not number 1. He was very clutch but a few post season drives don't make someone the best ever in my opinion. If he had won another with the Chiefs I may have a different attitude but that didn't happen. Elway was not one time a 1st team all pro... so how can someone realistically think he is the best of all time when he wasnt the best in one single season? Based on the criteria layed out it's fairly easy to come up with a list of the greatest *** Currently Aaron Rodgers is poised to become the best ever, he currently has the best td-interception ratio and QB rating of all time and is the most efficient qb to ever play the game. With a few more all pro teams and maybe another MVP; at the pace he is on statistically there really aren't any arguments against him at this time

I value stats because stats show what level a QB played at, but I look at stats in a relative manner such as "Did he have great WRs or average WRs?" or "Did he have a great running game to help him or was he a one-man show?" A QB that puts up big numbers with just decent WRs and a so-so running game is a better QB to me.

I placed absolutely ZERO value on Pro Bowls because that is nothing but a popularity contest.

Hidden Content"Amidst the uncertainties of war, every soldier is entitled to one certainty...that he will not be forgotten.
Poor is the nation that has no heroes, shameful is the one that, having them...forgets."

To say that MVP's don't really matter because it's a popularity contest/subjective is a false statement. The MVP award is a select award that only goes to a player that was absolutely outstanding..... potentially in a very close vote there could be a little subjectivity going on....... Can you name a year when an MVP was won where it was a gross mis-calculation and the wrong person won due to subjectivity? I don't rate Manning number 1 for that stat alone and personally think Peterson is this year's MVP. I would say SB MVP is ceertainly an award that is subjective and inaccurate... Manning should not have won SB MVP.... but I think the voting for league MVP has been accurate/ credible since I have been following football

Originally Posted by ensbergcollector

people seem to value stats that make their favorites look good and discredit stats that hurt their favorites. Not singling you out, just saying that is pretty standard in all "best of all time" lists. All manning fans want to devalue playoff performance because that is where manning suffers.
I think MVP should count for very little because it is very subjective and often times is more about the story then actual most valuable. Most manning fans want to value MVP's because that is where he stands above the rest.

same with montana fans wanting to use super bowls, and marino fans want to use statistics.

Hidden Content1. Main player wants- P. Manning/R. Moss/L. Tomlinson/D. Brees/M. Faulk2. If you ask for prices and don't reply with an answer I will not be replying to your "price" questions anymore. If not interested a simple no will do.

That is fair and understandable..... but how can that be the only criteria..... Why would you shy away from first team all pro apperances as the best criteria. That is voted on by people who are closest to the game and take stats into account. Players know who has talent and who has done the most with less. I can see why some people don't really assess pro bowls and that is fine; but it was my 5th or 6th criteria...... it does stand to reason however that a player who made 10 pro bowls as a starter was better than someone who made 4 or 5...... Comparing 7 and 10 or 9 and 12 is a different story but it does give a weak baseline idea of who was good during a certain time frame

Originally Posted by duane1969

I value stats because stats show what level a QB played at, but I look at stats in a relative manner such as "Did he have great WRs or average WRs?" or "Did he have a great running game to help him or was he a one-man show?" A QB that puts up big numbers with just decent WRs and a so-so running game is a better QB to me.

I placed absolutely ZERO value on Pro Bowls because that is nothing but a popularity contest.

Hidden Content1. Main player wants- P. Manning/R. Moss/L. Tomlinson/D. Brees/M. Faulk2. If you ask for prices and don't reply with an answer I will not be replying to your "price" questions anymore. If not interested a simple no will do.

The thing that sticks in my throat over Pro Bowls is Reuben Brown. My brother-in-law is a Bills fan so we watched a lot of Bills games back around the time that Brown was drafted and early on Brown was a horrible guard. He was constantly getting called for holding or clipping and was a virtual guarantee for at least one or two false starts per game. We were baffled when he was named to the '06 Pro Bowl. We were watching ESPN and a commentator brought it up and said that he thought that Reuben Brown's name was mentioned so much because of his constant issues with penalties that fans recognized his name when they were voting to for the Pro Bowl and voted for him, so essentially he got voted to the Pro Bowl for being a horrible guard that got a lot of penalties. Brown ended up going to 9 Pro Bowls, at least two of which I am sure he did not deserve. Steelers long-time All Pro guard Alan Faneca also went to 9 Pro Bowls. No way would I consider Brown and Faneca on the same level.

I think a lot of the "Top 5" ranking goes into personal opinion which is all arguable. Some people place high value on Super Bowl wins but then leave Terry Bradshaw off of their list. Others place high value on career stats but then place Brett Favre 3rd or 4th on their list even though he is tops in yards and TDs for a career. It's all subjective.

Hidden Content"Amidst the uncertainties of war, every soldier is entitled to one certainty...that he will not be forgotten.
Poor is the nation that has no heroes, shameful is the one that, having them...forgets."

It is all subjective, you are 100% correct. But like I said pro bowls was my 5th and last criteria. I know that is one of the least relevant ways of recognition and your example shows that. Ultimately in my mind there are 3 major criteria that need to be looked at (1st team all pro teams made/MVP's/TD-Interception ratio)...... Whatever order they fall, even if more criteria are looked at those are the single most important ways to value how great someone was/is. I think to be considered the greatest you need to have been a multiple time first team all pro..... I think to be te greatest you need to have at least one MVP... and to be the greatest you need to have at least a 2:1 TD to interception ratio with a baseline TD pass number (ie... 250 or more). Given that criteria I think you have a list of 8 or so guys that can be mentioned as the greatest to ever play (and because older guys dont meet the TD ratio due to how the game was played I think Unitas, Starr, Graham should be in the conversation as well).... so with those 10 or so guys; after that it's really a crapshoot, just depends on what single criteria of those means the most to you. I just think thee criteria makes a subjective argument just a bit more objective so logical arguments can be made. Some of the lists on here are ridiculous with guys like Aikman, Bradshaw, Eli Manning..... I mean don''t get me wrong, these guys are HOF's and great players.... but should absolutely never be mentioned in a top 5 list. Objective criteria just doesnt warrant their individual performance being mentioned in that rare air

Originally Posted by duane1969

The thing that sticks in my throat over Pro Bowls is Reuben Brown. My brother-in-law is a Bills fan so we watched a lot of Bills games back around the time that Brown was drafted and early on Brown was a horrible guard. He was constantly getting called for holding or clipping and was a virtual guarantee for at least one or two false starts per game. We were baffled when he was named to the '06 Pro Bowl. We were watching ESPN and a commentator brought it up and said that he thought that Reuben Brown's name was mentioned so much because of his constant issues with penalties that fans recognized his name when they were voting to for the Pro Bowl and voted for him, so essentially he got voted to the Pro Bowl for being a horrible guard that got a lot of penalties. Brown ended up going to 9 Pro Bowls, at least two of which I am sure he did not deserve. Steelers long-time All Pro guard Alan Faneca also went to 9 Pro Bowls. No way would I consider Brown and Faneca on the same level.

I think a lot of the "Top 5" ranking goes into personal opinion which is all arguable. Some people place high value on Super Bowl wins but then leave Terry Bradshaw off of their list. Others place high value on career stats but then place Brett Favre 3rd or 4th on their list even though he is tops in yards and TDs for a career. It's all subjective.

Hidden Content1. Main player wants- P. Manning/R. Moss/L. Tomlinson/D. Brees/M. Faulk2. If you ask for prices and don't reply with an answer I will not be replying to your "price" questions anymore. If not interested a simple no will do.

One of the criteria that I like to look at is how a QB would compare if given the same attempts. A lot of people give Terry Bradshaw no credit for being a top QB because of his lower career numbers, but if you compare him to other "great" QBs based on attempts he measures up quite favorably. This little comparison is a bit of a shocker to some people.

Example: Joe Montana attempted 5391 passes for 40551 yards and 273 TDs. Based on average yards per attempt and TDs per attempt, had Bradshaw attempted 5391 passes he would have had 38769 yards and 292 TDs.

Using the same math, compared to 59487 yards and 436 TDs for Peyton Manning, with the same number of attempts Bradshaw would have 55913 yards and 423 TDs.

My point? I look at averages more than gross numbers, but it is hard to ignore gross numbers.

Hidden Content"Amidst the uncertainties of war, every soldier is entitled to one certainty...that he will not be forgotten.
Poor is the nation that has no heroes, shameful is the one that, having them...forgets."